Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />• <br />Planning and Zoning Board <br />October 24, 1984 <br />Page Three <br />Jim Tuchscherer, 7860 Nottingham Lane appeared asking why the Board <br />changed the ordinance in the first place, to which Mr. Prokop gave <br />one reason being that detached garages could cause problems in the <br />event that the area became sewered and the owner would then want to <br />split his land into lots. Mr. Prokop explained that there was a <br />Task Force of approximately 20 people and several public hearings <br />before the ordinance was changed, so it was not a snap judgment. <br />Mr. Tuchscherer was in favor of Petition 2. <br />Larry Peterson made the point that the ordinance as it now stands <br />would help protect the owner of a one -acre parcel who would at <br />some time, because of sewer or other reason, want to split one <br />acre, but the ordinance provides no option for the owner who wishes <br />to keep his entire one acre and store his belongings inside. <br />Roger Kolstad felt that a detached garage could be easily moved if <br />it became a problem at the time of a lot split. <br />Harvey Karth spoke from the audience as a member of the Task Force <br />at the time of the ordinance change, saying that the changes to this <br />ordinance have obviously not stood the test of time, and that he <br />sees many valid requests both here at this meeting and several <br />people not here. He suggested controls for appropriate architecture <br />and felt the garage would be less an eyesore than yards with RVs, <br />boats, trailers and the like. <br />Larry Swistowski felt it was ridiculous for the City to plan around <br />the possibility of future sewer and the overall feeling toward sewer <br />seems to be negative even by the City representatives. <br />Mr. Prokop asked if anyone in a one acre lot has a detached garage <br />and wants another detached garage, to which audience answered 'no'. <br />Mr. Prokop also asked whether or not the audience felt there should <br />be limitations on keeping possessions outside when the garage is <br />available for storage purposes. The only suggestion was that pos- <br />sibly possessions which are not licensed (items other than vehicles) <br />should be kept in the garage if one is available. Mr. Kluegel read <br />the ordinance pertaining to exterior storage. <br />Niel Banta suggested that the ordinance allow the detached garage <br />to be a percentage of the backyard as is done in other communities. <br />The Board decided that they would like to tour the City and get an <br />idea of the types of situations they would be allowing should they <br />make the requested changes. Mr. Banta volunteered to guide the tour <br />since he felt he could show several examples. The Board, Mr. Kluegel <br />and Mr. Banta will meet at 9:00 A.M. on Saturday, November 3, at City <br />Hall to make the 'tour'. Any consideration of changes would then <br />take place as the first agenda item at the regular P & Z meeting on <br />November 14. <br />Several in the audience felt that this item has been up in the air <br />for long enough and felt the Board was procrastinating. It was ex- <br />plained that the P & Z Board put a priority on this issue relative <br />to other issues which they have recently dealt with and that the Board <br />